On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Just to remind people, the migration is happening Friday, so we need to make
> a yay/nay on whether we are going to tweak the history as Senthil has tested
> very soon. So I'm putting a deadline of Wednesday night to vote on whether
> we should tw
Count me as a weak -0.5 or so for altering commit messages. I think it
is easy enough to understand that historical messages refer to a
particular bug tracker, and false positives can be annoying,
distracting, make you wonder about the sanity of the person who
originally made the commit, etc.
On 7
On Feb 8, 2017 3:52 AM, "Martin Panter" wrote:
Count me as a weak -0.5 or so for altering commit messages. I think it
is easy enough to understand that historical messages refer to a
particular bug tracker, and false positives can be annoying,
distracting, make you wonder about the sanity of the
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 at 13:31 Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 05:05:27 +
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> > I have written up what I will say to python-committers once the migration
> > is complete:
> >
> https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/CPython-workflow-changes-mx1k8G6M0rg5JLy80F1r6
> .
> >
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2017 3:52 AM, "Martin Panter" wrote:
>
> Count me as a weak -0.5 or so for altering commit messages. I think it
> is easy enough to understand that historical messages refer to a
> particular bug tracker, and false positives can be a
Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil has
a day to test a conversion with the proposal below. So if you like what
Senthil is proposing then please say so, else you can also say you don't
want any history rewriting.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 10:09 Senthil Kumaran wrot
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement.
>
> 1) Rename #, Issue #, issue #, Issue, issue to bpo-
> 2) Looking for numbers 1000 and above which don't start with SF, is
> okay with me as it c
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Berker Peksağ wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> > _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement.
> >
> > 1) Rename #, Issue #, issue #, Issue, issue to bpo-
> > 2) Looking for numbers 1
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil has
> a day to test a conversion with the proposal below. So if you like what
> Senthil is proposing then please say so, else you can also say you don't
> want any history
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 20:29 Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil
> has
> > a day to test a conversion with the proposal below. So if you like what
> > Senthil is proposing then plea
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 20:29 Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil
>> > has
>> > a day to test a conversion with the pro
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> To summarize, are these alternatives correct?
yes, that is accurate.
___
core-workflow mailing list
core-workflow@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
This list is gover
> issues/PRs, but they might not know what they refer to). Even if
> eventually we might have enough PRs that the numbers will start
> overlapping, there shouldn't be any wrong link (the link are not
> created retroactively, unless GH changes in the future).
Nice!
Now I'm -1 for both of rewriting
13 matches
Mail list logo
